So what is considered credible sources? so if someone doesnt work for cnn, or fox or some other mainstream media they are not credible? Im just asking…some whistle blowers do have factual articles concerning matters of diff natures. That’s how we find out, not all mind you about the wrong doing going on in this world. thanks oak, appreciate your input.
Well, if you tell everyone your source, they can judge for themselves the credibility of the source. If your source is some tax protester who’s now in jail for tax evasion, then we’ll probably judge accordingly. If your source is a respected historian or constitutional law expert, then we might judge different. But no two people are going to give the same sources the same weight, everyone has their biases.
Fair enough! sounds good. I will keep that in mind next time. thanks!
one source is The Case for a Federalism Amendment - WSJ.com
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12404419… Mr. Barnett is a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown University and the author of “Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty” (Princeton, 2005).
Please try to repost that link-I can’t get it to work.
Good question. In ruling upon the validity of the 16th Amendment, the Court held that the decision by Sec’y of State Philander Knox to declare the amendment properly ratified was not reviewable by the Court, but it prefaced that by noting that Knox’s decision was something like “not transparently in error.” I read that as the Court leaving itself room to review a decision that is “transparently” wrong.
A large part of the federal government’s income in the early years was from sale of public lands. During the Civil War revenue was raised with a (wait for it… drum roll please…) tax on incomes. After the Civil War revenue was raised primarily by excise taxes, high tariffs, and sales of bonds. These were not viewed as economically sound ways to raise money, however, especially as they were raised repeatedly and their effects were felt disproportionately by the poor. An attempt to revive the income tax in 1894 was ruled unconstitutional, necessitating the 16th amendment.
The Case for a Federalism Amendment - WSJ Hope this works better. I have other documents and books i have read from constitutional law professors. This just happens to be the last article i read recently. you might think he is a nutjob too:) but altleast he has the credible credentials i think people were asking about.
I know shirley…they did that to help fund the civil war. But these days we are always in some kind of war so i guess that settles that. No turning back now! Gotta love working your ass off to make ends meet so we can repay the debt our crooked politiacians through the years have racked up. Thanks for the post. I look forward to hearing more from everybody.
Sweet Mother McCree, in eleven years on the SDMB that’s the dumbest typo that’s ever slipped by me. I do know the difference between attribution and retribution, I apparently just had a one-second stroke or something while typing. Color me embarrassed.
This brings up an intersting point about where the general public gets their news info from…which seems to be a good way for big companies to manipulate they way we view events in this world. That is scary because if the mainstream media wants you to see things their way, all they have to do is report it in a way to slant your view their way thus gaining support for whatever agenda they choose.
I’m not sure what this is supposed to be a source for, other than the opinion of the author (note that it’s in the editorial section). I will point out, however, that a constitutional law professor has essentially proposed a new amendment to repeal the 16th – presumably he therefore recognizes the legitimacy of the 16th amendment.
In any case, the entire thrust of the editorial is that people who are currently objecting to the expansion of the federal government are not doing a particularly effective job of accomplishing anything, hence his long shot (by his own admission) suggestion of a new federalism amendment. Personally, I would lump “arguing that the 16th amendment is invalid based on some technicality” into the category of ineffective strategies, but that’s just my opinion. It was an interesting read, though.
As would Susan B. Anthony.
Thanks steronz…i like to read, especially about government, history, wars and how they started. Maybe im a nut but so what…im a happy nut:) Its been rough at age 46 to go back to school to get my degree…which is not related to anything i have said in this forum. Big surprise huh! lol Thanks for the constructive criticism.
sigh justthetruth, let me explain to you what you’re up against here. All of us in GD are familiar with tax-protester arguments and other Idiot Legal Arguments, such as, that the presence or absence of a gold-fringed flag in a courtroom has some effect on the court’s jurisdiction; or, that individuals can unilaterally secede from the Union and declare themselves “sovereign citizens”; or, that they can set up their own “common-law courts” with full authority equal to (or greater than) that of state-constituted courts; etc., etc.
The whole bunch is a distinctly American thing, based on a purported reverence for “The Law” which some strains of American culture seem to assume as something immutable and even preceding the state – and as having been somehow illegitimately usurped by state power in the present day. Generally these arguments come from (1) Libertarians of certain strains, (2) paleoconservatives, (3) White Nationalists, (4) supporters of the Militia or “Patriot” movement, (5) religious extremists, (6) conspiracy theorists of various stripes, (7) hard-currency “goldbugs”, (8) Neo-Confederates, (9) various other kinds of cranks and nutjobs. There is, of course, considerable overlap between these groups. See Redemption Movement, Posse Comitatus, [etc., etc.
All of these are more or less on the RW side of the spectrum. (Their nearest analogues on the LW fringe are more likely to be [url=Tax resistance - Wikipedia]tax resisters](]Christian Patriot Movement,[/url) than tax protesters – tax resisters being conscientous objectors to paying taxes who do not contest the technical legality of the taxes in question.)
What you need to understand is, we’ve been over all this here many times, and all of these fringe legal theories are ahistorical, intellectually dishonest nonsense; none has ever stood up in a real court of law; and those who insist on them, however personally honest or well-intentioned they might be, risk being tarred with the same brush as the total nutbars – some of whom are not merely nutty but downright evil. I’m talking, Timothy McVeigh/Turner Diaries-level evil.
Evil im not, atleast i dont think so…but i understand what you are saying.
I have a question for you. Do you believe that blackflag operations exist? Ive read the some history about it and how they were carried out at various times throughout history. Ill post some articles here if need be so people dont think im completely crazy…just want to know what you think.
To the extent that common law is still relevant, the law does precede the state.
From an academic point of view, there’s probably some interesting analogies between the evolution of democracy and common law in England (and later Britain) and the anti-state “legal” theorists.
But they’re still wrong. 
What does this have to do with the 16th Amendment? If you wish to pursue a different topic, you should start a new thread.
Your right…i will do that. Got lost in thought. take care everyone! bye